Julia Gillard: Inspirational or Diabolical?

When news hit my ears that Kevin Rudd had stepped down and handed over the reins to Gillard, I couldn’t stop smiling. Why? A few reasons, but the most obvious being that I was proud to see the day a woman holds power in Australia.

I have long thought that in a country as wonderful and laid back as Australia, it sad that we are still a very backwards in the way we define women’s and men’s roles. This is slowly changing, but in a country that still thinks you’re soft if you’re a man and cry (Grand Final loses are an exception) I was proud of Julia getting there; even if it was under slightly dubious terms.

So you can imagine my surprise when other women, who clearly weren’t wearing the same rose-coloured glasses as me, ones who weren’t high-fiving and going on about girl power, started attacking Gillard’s lifestyle: Julia Gillard is apparently a bad role model for women. Aside from the fact that she was sworn in as our 27th Prime Minster. Aside from the fact that she is our first female Prime Minister. Gasp at the fact that she doesn’t have (or even worse, doesn’t want) children. But none of that is really bad. According to Sydney Morning Herald columnist Bettina Arndt,( http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/shacking-up-is-hard-to-do-why-gillard-may-be-leery-of-the-lodge-20100628-zexr.html) Gillard will lead young women astray and make bad decisions. The bad decision Gillard has made? Not being married.

Arndt’s article appeared on the SMH website on the 29th June. Arndt’s article opens with her questioning the real reason Gillard and partner Tim Mathieson haven’t moved into The Lodge yet. Arndt’s theory is that Gillard wants to test the waters of the Australian people and see how they react to Gillard and her “first man” moving in.
But Arndt’s stinging remarks are left for the core of her argument, which is that Gillard is in a position to ruin many young women’s lives. How you ask? Well despite Arndt admitting herself that between 1986 and 2006 the amount of de facto relationships has doubled, Arndt believes that women who follow Gillard’s lead will have miserable lives. Arndt declares that women in de facto relationships, and I quote: “(are) wasting precious breeding time in such uncertain relationships.”

Arndt goes on to say that these women will either end up with children who were used as a way to “fix” the relationship and no man, or end up bitter and childless because they were with Mr Wrong. But Bettina, who says you won’t end up bitter and childless with Mr Right? Why is Gillard a bad example for women because she has chosen a career over children and wishes to keep herself legally unattached? Who’s to say that either option has a guaranteed happy or sad ending?

Every relationship is different and the only people that know what really goes on in a relationship are the two people in that relationship. Not everyone is cut out to conform and I’m not opposed to either one. I am opposed to saying she’s a bad role model.

People acknowledge the fact that yes she is childless but it was her choice. We are in 2010 are we not? We are lucky to be able to choose who we date, marry, not marry, have kids, not have kids.

Let’s take a vote: is Julia Gillard a bad role model for women and is she attacking traditional values?

Does it bother you that she and Tim Mathieson aren’t married?

This girl is stepping off her soapbox and letting you jump on. So let’s hear it.

Quote Of The Day

"A true friend is someone who thinks that you are a good egg even though he knows that you are slighty cracked."

-Bernard Meltzer

Obituary Of The Late Mr Common Sense

A few months ago, an email that struck a chord with me, landed in my inbox. It wasn’t one of cute puppies or fluffy ducks or even an angel reminding me that I’m loved (all nice, please don’t stop sending them) but this one had me nodding my head in agreement with every word I read.

Originally written by Lori Borgman in 1998, (http://loriborgman.com) the piece still rings true today. At my ripe old age of 26 I am often found saying that no one has common sense anymore. No wonder; apparently he died in 1998. The following piece first appeared in the Indianapolis Star but has since been circulated around the internet and has been chopped and changed depending on those who read it.

The following landed in my inbox:

“Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, Common Sense, who has been with us for many years. No one knows for sure how old he was, since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape. He will be remembered as having cultivated such valuable lessons as: Knowing when to come in out of the rain; why the early bird gets the worm; Life isn't always fair; and maybe it was my fault.

Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don't spend more than you can earn) and reliable strategies (adults, not children, are in charge). His health began to deteriorate rapidly when well-intentioned but overbearing regulations were set in place. Reports of a 6-year-old boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate; teens suspended from school for using mouthwash after lunch; and a teacher fired for reprimanding an unruly student, only worsened his condition.

Common Sense lost ground when parents attacked teachers for doing the job that they themselves had failed to do in disciplining their unruly children. It declined even further when schools were required to get parental consent to administer sun lotion or an Elastoplast to a student; but could not inform parents when a student became pregnant and wanted to have an abortion.

Common Sense lost the will to live as the Ten Commandments became contraband; churches became businesses; and criminals received better treatment than their victims.

Common Sense took a beating when you couldn't defend yourself from a burglar in your own home and the burglar could sue you for assault. Common Sense finally gave up the will to live, after a woman failed to realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little in her lap, and was promptly awarded a huge settlement.

Common Sense was preceded in death by his parents, Truth and Trust; his wife, Discretion; his daughter, Responsibility; and his son, Reason. He is survived by his 4 stepbrothers; I Know My Rights, I Want It Now, Someone Else Is To Blame, and I'm A Victim.
Not many attended his funeral because so few realized he was gone. If you still remember him, pass this on. If not, join the majority and do nothing.”

If you, like me shook your head at the loss of common sense, leave a comment with the latest ridiculous loss of common sense you witnessed and we will mourn with you.

Quote Of The Day

"There are many paths to the top of the mountain, but the view is always the same."

Chinese proverb

Quote Of The Day

"...my life is now on a spiritual path. I'm now a spiritual warrior, I'm a man on a mission..."

"I was just thinking, many of us read so much and are so wise yet when it comes to it the knowledge we have gained and words we have read, appear to vanish and we forget the wisdom we accumulate through time, could it be that when we read with our ego that is reading to show off or to portray yourself as an intellectual, that we then fail at absorbing the information that we need. Rather we must learn to read, and in reality forget what we have read .
I am but small in this huge world and in reality i know nothing but i feel that it is because i know nothing that iam so content, satisfied and full of meaning."

-Walter Gonzalez

In loving memory of a beautiful man, friend and spirit.

Walter Gonzalez, aka, Chinoblack, 09/05/1988-12/06/2010

A New Dawn

On the 23rd of June, 2010, Australians watching Hey, Hey It’s Saturday, had their program interrupted by a cross to the channel 9 newsroom, where a political bombshell was dropped: an emergency meeting had been called in Canberra and Kevin Rudd wasn’t invited.

For weeks rumours have been circulating that Rudd’s head was going to roll, and that Julia Gillard would be left holding the silver platter Rudd was to be served on. For weeks, Gillard dogged questions about stepping up as Prime Minster, even going as far as saying that she would play full-forward for the Western Bulldogs before she ended up as Prime Minster. (The Western Bulldogs issued a statement tonight saying that although she would make a great, small full- forward, they were sure that she would have too much to do now, to play).

A new dawn of Australian politics has begun and Julia Gillard, Australia’s first female Prime Minster, is at the helm. Although the position of PM is not new to Gillard, as she has stepped in as Deputy PM many times before, it is however the first time in Australian history that a female Governor-General has sworn in a female Prime Minster. The times, they are a changing.

Journalists politely laughed at Kevin Rudd’s parting jokes, as he stood, surrounded by his family, for the last time as Prime Minster of Australia. Kevin 07’s reign had ended abruptly, in another first for Australian politics. Outnumbered and betrayed by his own party, Rudd knew his time was up. At 9am, EST, on the 24th of June, Rudd conceded defeat and without going to a vote, stepped down as Prime Minster. Never before has this happened to a serving Government and Rudd’s bad-luck has already been linked to Gough Whitlam’s untimely departure as PM, in 1975.

His family behind him, Rudd summed up his time in Government with what he was most proud of: the apology to the Stolen Generation and what he was not most proud of: blubbering in public. It was a brave man that stood before the journalists this morning and it would have taken a lot of strength to say goodbye. His bottom lip quivering and long pauses to try and compose himself, Rudd departed with class and a positive attitude: we haven’t seen the last of him; he still wants to be a part of the Labor party.

As parliament sat today with Rudd in the back bench, one had to wonder what was going through his mind. Rudd was not a party man and felt strongly about his beliefs and that, in the end was his undoing. The camera caught him looking forlorn, or perhaps he was being nostalgic; not 24 hours before, he had been sitting where Gillard was now sitting.

Gillard and Rudd were a strong team and eyes now turn to see how Gillard performs upfront. Gillard has the majority of the Labor party’s backing (it was reported that Rudd had as little as 25% of the party behind him) and even if you’re not interested in politics, you must take note of how significant this shift has been.

Victorian Premier John Brumby was ecstatic at the news that his former Chief of Staff was now the PM. It was no secret that Brumby and Rudd did not see eye to eye.

Gillard has declared that we will go to the polls in the next few months as she is aware that the people have not elected her has PM. Gillard has no plans to move into The Lodge anytime soon either, but instead plans to remain at her current residence.

I end this blog with a salute to Kevin Rudd: he introduced us to words like: “detailed programmatic specificity” and did what the Government before him could not: apologised to the Aboriginals and acknowledged that they had been wronged. He tried to implement actions for climate change, pushed for paid maternity leave and spoke (most of the time) like the common man (swearing and visits to strip clubs included). Rudd tried to break the trend of governments before him and in part, succeeded. But in the end, he lost confidence in his party and they in turn, deserted him.

As the bell tolls for Rudd, Julia Gillard steps into the role of Labor PM and has wasted no time in passing an olive branch to the mining companies, pulling the $38 million ad campaigns asking that they in return, can their retaliation campaigns. The mining companies have excepted.

So far so good for Gillard and her Labor constituents. But what is the feeling out their with you all? Are you sad to see the back of Rudd? Do you like Gillard as our PM? (Please note, I don’t care if she has green hair or purple, the way she looks, the colour of her hair, marital status and clothes DO NOT maketh a leader. So please do not post any ranger or sexist remarks here, leave that to your Facebook page.)

How Do You Sign?

Yesterday, I found myself sitting down and writing out a congratulations-on-the-baby card. This action in itself is something of a new phenomenon, one that no doubt in the near future will become a regular occurrence, but when I got to the end of the card, I didn’t know how to sign it. I yelled out to my partner if he wanted to sign it “love” but he said no, but to instead write “Best Wishes”. This got me thinking; what is the appropriate way to sign things?

On the same day, I was also writing out a wedding card (not to the same couple but perhaps Hallmark could look into that; congratulations on the nuptials and the gift from Mr Stalk!) but this time it was for close friends, so the obvious way to sign the card would be with “love.” But the baby card people are friends of my partner that although he has known for years, they weren’t close enough to state love. Or is that a male thing?

This all reminded me of an episode of Sex and the City when Samantha is dating her boss Richard and he is showering her with extravagant gifts, but signing “Best, Richard” on the cards. It’s not exactly what you would want written on a card from someone who you are currently attached to, but until those three gargantuan words, “I love you” are spoken, best or from seems to be the safe option.

I was faced with another signing dilemma the other day when I wrote in a work colleague’s all-the-best-for-the-future card. I liked her and enjoyed our time working together, but wasn’t friendly enough to write love but thought “from” was too cold. I looked at what other people had written and some had written nothing at all but a heart followed by their name. Undecided, I simply signed my name with a smiley face. I thought I had ticked the friendly but not too friendly box without being distant. After being happy with my choice, I just hoped she could read my writing.

When applying for a job, we sign, “Yours sincerely”, “Yours truly” or “Respectively yours”. We don’t know the person we are writing too, sometimes you don’t even have a name, but you don’t want to come across as too friendly or un- professional. You want to impress. When hundreds of resumes and cover letters all sound and look the same (with a lot of creative license no doubt) you want to be remembered, but for the right reasons.

Email etiquette has added a whole new level of what is polite and over-friendly. The standard signing off for a work email is “Kind Regards”. If you are familiar with the person or are replying to an email conversation, the best response would be simply just to sign off with “Regards” followed by your name. But with friends and family you could reply with love and xoxo’s and “hope this finds you well”, depending on how friendly/close you are with them. You wouldn’t sign off with “from” like you would a letter. But emails can get complicated when the format can be far more casual and you don’t want the person to get the wrong impression.

Have you have ever had a situation where you have signed “love” and the other person has felt weird about it? This could have been a friend, potential partner or accidently a work colleague. Have you been at the receiving end of an awkward signing? Let me know your thoughts and the different ways you sign.

Don't Be A Dickhead

The TAC have released their new campaign, "Don't Be A Dickhead" the following link is the first of a series of ads.

The ads are aimed at the young. Do you think it's effective? Or making a mockery of the situation?

Let me know what you think.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzCjtGl0sXk

Nanny State? Webber, You Bloody Idiot

Perhaps the Government had Mark Webber in mind when they created their controversial new slogan “you’re a dickhead.” Deputy Police Commissioner Ken Lay probably thinks so.

Webber has been in the middle of a tangled web that has spun bigger and bigger since he defended Lewis Hamilton’s actions of doing a burnout and a fishtail last Friday night. Hamilton was seen by police officers performing the burnouts on St Kilda Road and consequently had his car impounded and received a summons for inappropriate use of a vehicle. The former World Champion hid his face in shame as the media caught wind of his little misdemeanour. Was it embarrassment of being caught or embarrassment over the fact that he alleged had a passenger in the vehicle with him, whose life, he put at risk?

Webber and Hamilton are paid thousands to be the fastest and the best on the track. They have millions worldwide looking up to them and wishing they were them. Being in the spotlight, they have a responsibility to be safe off and on the track.

Grand Prix boss Ron Walker supported Hamilton’s actions and blamed it on a once off, snap decision. “I know Lewis Hamilton well and he spends a lot of his time talking to young people about road safety.” Walker said. Perhaps he’s had too many bumps on the track and has forgotten?

Enter Mark Webber. Webber blamed Hamilton’s punishments as a result of Australia being a Nanny State. “It’s a great country, but we’ve got to be responsible for our actions and it’s certainly a bloody Nanny State when it comes to what we can do.” Webber then went on to say that you had to “dodge the ridiculous speeding and parking rules” that we have in Australia.

I’m sure Ken Lay and the 6 families that had loved ones affected by road trauma this past weekend wouldn’t agree. To say that Ken Lay was more than disappointed with Mark Webber’s comments is an understatement. “It’s really disappointing. Mark Webber is in a position where he’s got the ability to influence our road users,” the Deputy Police Commissioner said. “That’s after a weekend which left six dead, four of them attributed to speeding.”

With the Easter break coming up the police are worried that this will be our worst road death toll in five years. We already have 11 more dead than this time last year.

So what do you think? Are our road rules too strict? Is Mark Webber right, or should he have made a visit to The Alfred Hospital, and visited the trauma unit and see up close and personal what speed and breaking “the rules” can do?

TAC 20 Years

Tomorrow night at 8.30, the TAC ask us to watch the road toll halve in three minutes.

It has been 20 years since the first TAC ad appeared on Australian television and since then we have been forced to think about our actions and the repercussion we may feel, in the form of destroyed lives, hopes and dreams, mangled limbs and pulverised brains.

Tomorrow night, at 8.30 make sure you are watching either 7, 9, 10 or SBS to hear the TAC's message.

Do yourself a favour and click on the following link http://www.youtube.com/tac?gl=AU&hl=en-GB

And remember, if you drink and drive, you're a bloody idiot.

Quote Of The Day

"It is better to be a lion for a day than a sheep all your life." -Sister Kenny

Quote Of The Day

"The one who removes a mountain begins by carrying away small stones."-Anonymous

Booze Hours Clipped

The Sunday Age reported today that three of Melbourne's CBD 24-hour bottle shops hours have been clipped do try and curb alcohol-fuelled violence.

The Liquor Licensing Commission has been forced to act due to police and public pressure to try and solve the violent problems in Melbourne.

Will this help diminish alcohol-fulled violence? Or just push the violence to an earlier hour?

I don't believe that slashing bottle shop times will change anything. If people want to get drunk, they will get drunk. What really needs to be looked at is the responsible serving of alcohol in pubs and clubs and even restaurants to not give already intoxicated people more alcohol. I understand that at most places it is dark and the bar is often crowded and you're so busy you may not even being that much attention yo who you are serving. But guess what, to be serving alcohol legally in the first place, you need to have obtained an RSA certificate, which means you have learnt that it is illegal to serve an intoxicated person. You need to be paying attention.

I know many mangers and bar owners will not be happy to read this and having worked in hospitality, I know that the bar is the main money earner but at what price?

Most people going to bottle shops are at a home environment and in the suburbs. Violence is still happening there too, so maybe the Liquor Licensing Commission should look further out and crackdown on venues rather then bottle shops.

What do you think? Will this help curb alcohol-fuelled violence, or is it just a scheme for the Liquor Licensing Commission to be seen to be doing something?

Smack Out Of It

On an issue that many may think would divide the nation, a whopping 90% of Australians believe it is OK to smack a child.

According to polls where almost 8000 Australians voted, 90% and more believe that it is OK to give a child a quick smack to remind them that what they have done is wrong. No one is condoning belting a child, and there is a large gap between abuse and a smack but in an age where everyone is so righteous, the poll results shock.

The issue of smacking flared up again recently when Victorian mother Claire Davidson received a knock on the door from the police who promptly informed her that if she hits her child with a wooden spoon again she would be charged with assault with a weapon. I'm not sure about you, but last time I stirred a bowl, I didn't use a deadly weapon.

Claire Davidson's daughter, who is 9, was participating in a classroom discussion when she told her class her mum hits her with a wooden spoon. Her teacher then informed a school support worker who contacted the police.

When did it become a crime to reprimand your child? When did we become so precious? Our Tasman friends the New Zealanders know all about punishing children. In 2007 it became illegal to use force to discipline your child. If parents are seen to be doing so they could be charged and turn into criminals overnight.

A recent argument put forward against smacking is that it will in fact lower your child's IQ. American (where else?) psychologist Murray Straus found that children who were smacked by their parents scored an IQ 5 points lower then those children who were not physically disciplined.

A quick poll around my office found that the majority if not all, showed no problem of smacking a child. One mother said, "Don't tell me off for smacking my kids and then when their 16 tell me to control them. If they don't learn respect and what's right and wrong from a young age, what hope is there for them?"

One can't help but to ask is this why there so many violent attacks happening? Youths of today know, no boundaries and lack respect for people their own age, older and authority figures.

So what's your opinion? Is smacking a form of abuse or a way to discipline a child every now and then?

Fire Safe; Are You Ready?

The Brumby Government in co-operation with the CFA, have released a new fire safety policy that helps to prevent the tragedy that was Black Saturday.

You would have to be living under a rock to not know about Black Saturday so I will skip over the horrific facts and bring to your attention the Brumby Government scheme. Tell me your thoughts and whether or not this is enough to help prevent, Australia’s worse natural diaster from happening again:

The biggest change is the introduction of a new Fire Danger Rating Policy. This policy contains six categories of danger: Code Red-Catastrophic, Extreme, Severe, Very High, High and Low Moderate.

CODE RED, CATASTROPHIC: If you live in a bush fire prone area your safest option is to leave the night before or early in the morning.

EXTREME: Leave early in the morning or you can stay on your property if you are well planned, have a well constructed home and you can defend your property.

SEVERE: Leave your property early in the morning or say if you can protect and defend your home.

VERY HIGH: If you live in a high-prone area, you should leave at the beginning of the day.

HIGH: Go over your bush fire survival plan and make sure you’re ready if the time comes for you to flee.

LOW MODERATE: Check your bushfire plan.

This policy however doesn’t give any form of authorities the power to forcibly remove anyone from their property. That decision still lies firmly with the owner. But will anyone take that risk? Would you after what happened on Black Saturday?

It has also been estimated that the freakish weather conditions of February 7th, will happen at least once more this summer. It’s not only up to the Government or the CFA, local councils have to do there bit too. The Dandenong Ranges have been ravaged recently with a mass clean up (or clean out) of trees. This is NOT the way to go.

Allow local fire authorities to back burn the possible hot spots and clean up debris and scrub. This won’t stop fires from happening, but it will rob them of fuel.

So, with the fire season officially beginning on October 28, I ask you, the very people who could be affected, is the Government’s new fire policy enough to help prevent another Black Saturday?